Monthly Archives: November 2010

The best way to combat cultural relativism is to establish a set of standards to which everyone would be held accountable. A collection of moral values that established the boundaries of right and wrong, that would be equally applied to all, and achieved through the process of open dialogue and discussion. The closest thing we have to this might be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UDHR is a declaration adopted by the United Nations at its inception in 1948. It is largely recognized as the first global declaration of rights entitled to all.

Despite the existence of the UDHR and many other UN conventions that have come up since elaborating on the UDHR, our world can be characterized by a lack of people having access to the most basic human rights. The UDHR is recognized in words but not in actions. Its application is limited, reserved for a privileged few and denied to so many. As a result its difficult to think of it as truly being universal.

Are there in fact any universal values or norms? If so, who sets them? Is it enough to set them at an international level when they are so rarely reflected in practice?

Many people believe that just as there are physical laws which apply to all human beings, there are spiritual principles that are neither inventions of the human mind nor social conventions. Rather, they are expressions of the laws of material and spiritual existence and are built into the structure of the universe. How can we all be assisted to recognize these universal spiritual principles? Would that change how universal laws were implemented?

In July, the United Nations announced the formation of a new agency, UN Women, that combines four agencies of the UN that work towards the advancement of women.

Earlier this month UN Women elected countries that would sit on its first board, with Saudi Arabia gaining a seat on the 41-member board. The election of Saudi Arabia has received much criticism because Saudi Arabia is not known for its promotion of women’s rights, including women not having the right to vote or have drivers licenses. Saudi Arabia has also been criticized for passing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) with reservations stated that anytime any point of the convention contradicted Islamic Law, they would not implement it, which effectively nullifies several articles of the convention. The United States was vocal in its opposition to Saudi Arabia and other countries with poor records of female empowerment joining this board. It was thought to make a mockery of the entire organization. As one reporter explained, “It took years to make the United Nations’ newest agency, UN Women, a reality, and then just one day to effectively kill it.” The reporter goes on to say that Saudi Arabia most likely bought its way onto the board by offering generous donations.

Its interesting to look at other countries that have also been voted onto the board, countries like the United States and Democratic Republic of Congo. The United States refused to sign ratify CEDAW entirely, and has been criticized for it, and the DRC has been referred to as the worst place to be a woman because of the practice of mass rape as a weapon of war. In the field of international relations, countries commonly criticize another country’s adherence to human rights even though its own history of human rights might be questionable at best. Usually this is considered considered to be a weakness of a country’s criticism; for example, how can the United States criticize Saudi Arabia when it too has a history of not passing UN resolutions related to women’s rights? Yet if each country waited until they were perfect examples of united and equal societies, we could never bring human rights’ violations to the attention of the international arena. A moral void would be created because there would be a paralysis of action.

Notwithstanding, only focusing on the violations occurring in one place but not in another creates a system of relativism, in which not all violations are treated equally. How, then, can a community determine how principles should be applied? Who is to decide what changes are to be made and how?

Kwame Antony Appiah is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the book The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions happen. Appiah explains that changes in negative practices are brought to an end when they come into conflict with honor. He explains that the most powerful force in the world of politics is this sense of collective honor, which is tied up in modern nationalism. Therefore countries can essentially be shamed into realizing that their practices are wrong and in an attempt to protect their honor they will eradicate these practices. If individuals love their country then they care whether it is respected in the world. He goes on to explain that the height of honor is thinking of yourself as entitled of respect and worried about earning disrespect by failing to do whats right. Appiah specifically cites the eradication of foot binding in China as an example of successfully appealing to people’s honor as a way of ending an unjust practice.

As Appiah explains, shaming countries into ending human rights abuses in a regular practice in politics, it has proven to work in the past. At the same time in order to institute sustainable change the desire for change must come from the people themselves. It is not enough for a government to create laws that bring an end to certain practices if the people themselves are unwilling to end long held cultural practices. How do people become empowered to reflect on their own cultural values and determine what changes should be made? Also how can we seek to create change in a way that recognizes people’s true identity as a noble being with inherent capacities?

When I was looking for an article on cultural relativism, I was searching for a practice that was widely used in a specific culture but popularly regarded as wrong. Instead, I found an article that I think is much more thought provoking. An opinion piece from Lisa Shannon highlights her experiences in the Congo working with women who are survivors of sexual violence. Shannon describes her encounter with a European aid worker who was creating videos to be used in refugee camps in Tanzania to encourage them to return to the Congo, assuring refugees that violence had decreased. The aid worker explained, “Foreign militias are gone, just rapes and looting for the moment. No attacks.” When confronted by Shannon regarding the dismissal of rapes, the aid worker explained that rape was not a security threat; it was so common in Congo that it was cultural.

Sexual violence in the Congo is without a doubt one of the worst anywhere in the world. To be dismissed as cultural is to infer that Congolese women should accept this practice and that men are encouraged to behave this way. Shannon explains, “ …we in the West too often find it easier to perceive rape as an accepted part of an unfamiliar culture rather than as a tool of war that we could help banish. Too often, the enemy becomes all Congolese men rather than men with guns terrorizing the Congolese people. By casting the chaos and violence as “men vs. women” or dismissing the crisis as “cultural,” we do a profound injustice to Congolese men. Rather than help, we send an implicit insult: It’s a pity, but, well…it’s just who you people are.”

In this case, cultural relativism becomes the means through which we (in the West) have taken an incidence of supreme violence against women as cultural in order to excuse ourselves from working to stop the practice. The document explains that cultural relativism can be used as a means to excuse inaction and allow the perpetuation of injustice. As Shannon explains, “when we label rape in Congo ‘cultural,’ we let ourselves off the hook. And that is a cultural issue. Ours.”

This is a dangerous form of cultural relativism because it is one in which we come to expect negative behaviors from certain cultures. In dismissing the violence we are excusing ourselves from responsibility. How can social values and structures premised on false conceptions of human nature be critically examined and reformed?

This section of the document focuses on moving beyond cultural relativism

The diverse cultures that exist in the world today embody different ways of perceiving and interacting with the world. Humanity is gradually maturing beyond the notion that some ‘advanced’ and ‘civilized’ cultures carry the burden of ‘civilizing’ others. Most thoughtful people agree that cultural imperialism, or the domination of one culture by another, can no longer be condoned or enabled. Along with a growing appreciation for local knowledge, people everywhere are gaining greater understanding of the strength and richness that comes from cultural diversity, much like the genetic diversity that we treasure in the natural world and view as a common trust.

There are, however, certain beliefs or practices in every culture that are prejudicial towards, or are in some way harmful to, particular groups, especially women and girls who often occupy the most vulnerable positions in society. Cultural relativism, the view that all cultural practices and beliefs are equally valid, has gained prominence in recent times and has certain value. But when cultural relativism is elevated as the sole lens through which we view cultures, it provides no means of overcoming oppressive aspects of cultures, no means of addressing the injustices that are frequently carried out in the name of tradition, culture, and often religion, and no means of creating more just and equitable societies. Taken to the extreme, cultural relativism denies the possibility of any universal moral standards. It can also be used as an excuse for inaction to prevent injustice or, more seriously, as a defense for action that is objectively harmful to certain groups. This kind of approach has in many circumstances led to a moral void, and a paralysis of will, that has allowed for the perpetuation of injustices.

So we’ve talked about the negative impact the media can and does have on us by misrepresenting our true nature (looking specifically at film and television). By focusing on negative and shallow aspects of individuals, the media skews how we see ourselves. Sarah and Josh both highlighted two ways in which this can happen. Yet recognizing the negative influences of the media is only one part of trying to counteract these negative influences. We have to recognize that the media is an ever present force in our society and begin to think about how the media can change in order to reflect our true nature and in turn promote the equality of women and men.

So I pose the following questions to consider:

How can individuals and groups begin to counteract the negative influences of media? What role can media play in fostering positive social change? How can new media content be developed that reflects the true nature of human beings?

Following up on the perspective Sarah offered, Josh talks about how his work with children and young adults has allowed him to see the damaging impact media can have. His experiences reflect the part of the document that explains, “around the world, adolescent girls and boys are raised in an environment that is strongly influenced by media systems that propagate and exploit misconceptions about human nature.”

We started a recycling project in an apartment complex where we are holding spiritual educationclasses for the children and their families that live there. We had built this wagon to be carted aroundto each house so that the kids could drop off their recyclable materials. It was a fantastic idea, one ofour best. But in the conceptual phase of the design, my co-teacher and I neglected to work in a steeringmechanism. So, instead of pulling it, we have to load it up into his truck and drive it around. And so now,everyone piling up into the truck has become the unofficial favorite part of the entire day.

There is one little 7 year old girl who, in the absence of a father, has really clung to me. She jumped intothe passenger seat, buckled up, flashed me a smile and then turned on the radio. “Promiscuous Girl”came pumping out and my little friend started dancing and yelled with glee “Oh this is my favorite song!I haven’t heard it forever!” I quickly changed it to National Public Radio, and looked down at her. I’m nota father yet, but seeing this tender being that I love so deeply form such an attachment to a song, thatI’m sure she didn’t understand, panged my heart. And in that split section, I saw the progression anddevelopment of something quite disturbing.

That day’s class was particularly hard, as two other children, best friends, screamed at each other inanger, ultimately erupting in “F*** you’s” and “Your mom is a b****. They ran to opposite sides of theyard where our classes are held, and burst into tears. It’s hard to see this actions form pieces of theiridentity. These children are so susceptible, particularly when their home life is unstable, and as they arebeing acted upon by such potent forces prominent today.

I also work with university students, collaborating with others to develop educational support servicesthat enhance a student’s sense of integrity and ownership of their learning experience. Most of thetime, these programs are designed around the methodology of peer education because it has beenlearned, and this is no secret, that building relationships of support with those that are experiencing thesame as you is extremely powerful.Though somewhat ironic, I’ve found that in even though we are attempting to create an environmentwhere students help students, the end goal is quite individualistic. We help others so they may bemore competitive. We educate others even to question their reality, to socially deconstruct theirenvironment, and then leave them to grope and search for something meaningful as they attempt tobe “successful”. The lamentable part about this is that once again, they are all alone; whereas beforemaybe they had some (often fragmented) definition of self.

I see first-year students enter, and they are smart and quick. Consistently, though, they have not beenchallenged. Many, too many, sit passive and tacit. They are unprepared to interact in what is now beingpopularly called a “learning community”. Often they lack the inclination to participate or understandhow innovation actually occurs. We have to ask what has contributed to and patterned this isolationistcharacter, devoid of volition that extends beyond self-centeredness.

Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith, warned against what he labeled the prostitution of the arts. Taking part in the education, working with children and then young adults, this concept becomes quite vivid and real; you see the progression. When the “arts” (I include media and technology) fall into this form, all participantsbecome debased and ultimately self-serving. And this notion, germinating in the mind of a 7 year old,slowly but surely becomes patterned action and we come across a 19 year old incapable of asking forassistance, or authentically offering it.

Its more than just films that project a narrow image of human identity. Television is a culprit as well. There are many areas which one could point out about how television gets it so wrong but if we look just at one area of television, reality shows, we see the portray of individuals as hedonistic, competitive and self-centered. Reality shows can be specifically singled out because they are supposed to represent real individuals. While characters that have been created for scripted shows will largely reflect popularly held notions and beliefs, at least they can hide behind the idea that it is a fictional person created in the writers room. Reality television is arguably not always based in reality but its initial selling point was the idea of ordinary people as entertainment. Yet the type of people that are chosen and the identities that are played up rely on the basest elements of human nature. Not only are these negative portrayals highlighted on the show but they are also practically praised as being positive. Those who have the most outrageous behavior are rewarded either through winning or becoming famous, reinforcing this type of behavior. Winning is given the utmost importance and therefore whatever it takes to win is understandable. This is especially the case in shows like Survivor that are just about competition and voting people out but you can see it in shows that are supposed to be based on talent as well like Top Chef or Project Runway. Competition is considered to be the means through which to bring out someone’s best work. Yet, as can usually be seen on these shows, competition brings out people’s worst side. Just watch the video below for proof.

Yet television doesn’t always get it wrong. A recent video from Sesame Street highlights how this medium can be used to put forward the idea of the importance of accepting yourself just the way you are, a rare message reflected in the media.

Advertisements

Get Updated!

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Welcome

At the core of this blog is the document “Advancing towards the Equality between Women and Men” prepared by the Institute for Studies in Global Prosperity. However, engendering equality is not just a catchy name, it’s also a process we are all engaged in. In order to give us inspiration to be working towards engendering equality this blog tries to create a space in which actions and reflections are shared by individuals on the promotion of the equality of women and men within their social space.